Posted on 04/17/2012 5:42:15 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Cameron in humiliating u-turn on future of Britain's aircraft carriers with return of jump jet
David Cameron has agreed to an embarrassing U-turn on the future of the Royal Navy’s aircraft carriers.
The Prime Minister has decided to reverse a decision on the type of jets due to fly from the two warships.
In doing so he has returned to a plan by Labour that he once derided as an ‘error’.
Senior Downing Street sources say Mr Cameron has decided to follow military advice and abandon plans to buy the conventional F-35C Joint Strike Fighter after costs soared by £1.8billion.
Instead, the Government will revert to the F-35B version which takes off and lands like a Harrier jump jet. This proposal had been controversially axed by the Coalition in 2010.
The U-turn will be especially embarrassing because the jump jet was Labour’s choice – one that Mr Cameron overturned.
A senior security source said the U-turn will be signed off by the National Security Council in the next two to three weeks. ‘All the evidence points in one direction,’ the source said. ‘It will have to be formally looked at by the NSC.’
Mr Cameron had resisted calls by Defence Secretary Philip Hammond to abandon the F35C.
But a source close to the Prime Minister said he had now been persuaded: ‘If David has to make what are very difficult political decisions he wants to make sure that they’re the right ones.’
No 10 officials said the rising cost of the aircraft and the fact that the conventional version is so delayed had forced a change of heart.
Pressing on with the plan could have delayed the £6.2billion HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales by another
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
If the government had opted to press on with the refit of the HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, pictured in an artist's impression, it could have delayed the carriers by another seven years
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2130612/Cameron-makes-humiliating-u-turn-future-Britains-aircraft-carriers.html#ixzz1sIhtyaKY
This is good news. Wish more leaders back-racked on bad military decisions. We’’re going to need those carriers in the SA sooner rather than later.
I haven’t read much on the F-35. Why would the conventional version cost more and be delayed more than the VTL version?
I would think the vertical take-off would be much more complex.
The JSF program is a disaster. Time to restart the F-22 line, and think about a purpose-built carrier-based fighter.
Its not just the fighter, its the refit of current British military systems to incorporate a successor to the Harrier that is not the same type of fighter.
That means refit of ships, supplies, training and doctrine, ect.
There are two separate issues concerning the Brits here. One is that the undercarriage of the F-35C needs to be modified after its tailhook failed to snag arrester wires in tests.
And then there is the whole issue of having to modify the initial design of the two British carriers (being built) which was optimsed for the F-35B.
Why does the British carrier design have two islands?
It supposedly offers greater survivability by separating functions and also offers reduced turbulence for approaching aircraft.
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvf/
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvf3-2.htm
It supposedly offers greater survivability by separating functions and also offers reduced turbulence for approaching aircraft.
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvf/
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvf3-2.htm
Can’t say I blame the Brits. Isn’t the F-35C getting just too daXXed expensive at about $160M per plane. Plus everything else needed to support it?
Can’t we stick to the Raptor? How has it been shown to be deficient or obselete?
I think the reason for killing it was because it wasn't suited for all the services (i.e. can you use it on a carrier as well as on airbases?) and it was considered too expensive. Maybe with JSF costs increasing, that calculation could be redone.
It saves space
Navair Ping
What is wrong with the F-35C?
“What is wrong with the F-35C?”
1. The expected unit cost is spiraling out of control, even by Pentagon standards.
2. By trying to do too many things, it will likely do nothing as well as the F-22 (except be able to land on a carrier).
3. The Navy, recognizing the problems with the F-35C, is already hedging its bet on the F-35C by contemplating a successor to the F/A-18.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.